ID, evolution, and inductive reasoning

if you are unfamiliar as to what inductive reasoning is, please go to wikipedia or a general logic/philosophy website before posting here

now that the disclaimer is out of the way

i would like to ask any supporters of ID to name one argument in favor of ID that doesn't involve inductive reasoning

and then i would people who support evolution to give one non-inductive argument to support evolutionary theory

that's how i want this thread to begin, whatever happens to it afterward is in YOUR hands

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if you are unfamiliar as to what inductive reasoning is, please go to wikipedia or a general logic/philosophy website before posting here

now that the disclaimer is out of the way

As the first post in your newest of a continuing theme of threads, I must state that I am truly sorry to not oblige your request for the direction you are trying to take it.

However I did feel the need to point something out:

i would like to ask any supporters of ID to name one argument in favor of ID that doesn't involve inductive reasoning

I can't imagine what you're getting at here... you're probably going to have to clarify...

Perhaps this is news to you, but science is performed via inductive reasoning... the scientific method is often referred to as the inductive method. Hypotheses are formed via the process of induction.

So you want IDists to make an argument in favor of something without having a working hypothesis? Seems like a logical impossibility to me.

Just so someone doesn't claim I stated the scientific method is entirely inductive. The scientific method involves a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning. Induction is used to form hypotheses and arguments, while deduction is employed to make a specific prediction about what should happen under some certain conditions.

If you're going to employ the scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning are both part of the process.

and then i would people who support evolution to give one non-inductive argument to support evolutionary theory

So what you're saying is you want a prediction without a working hypothesis?

that's how i want this thread to begin, whatever happens to it afterward is in YOUR hands

Ummmm... yeah... if you can answer my question re: why you want to leave out half the scientific method, we can move on from there.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 31-8-2006 by mattison0922]

well, i'm trying to bridge the gap between evolution and intelligent design. trying to unite instead of divide

i really want this thread to become less abrasive, this should be a forum for civil discourse, not yet another website where we get flamewars galore

mods, just close this thread, and try to make people play nice

i just have no energy to do that now